When James Murdoch was considering marrying Kathryn Hufschmid, he invited her to meet his family while they were holidaying on a super yacht off the coast of Australia. During the holiday, she caught Rupert cheating at Monopoly. Murdoch just smirked and shrugged.
This morsel is from an article just published in the Atlantic by McKay Coppins based on interviews with James and Kathryn over a year. It offers by far the greatest and most authoritative insight into James’s views that has yet been published.
One of the reasons that James, for the first time, agreed to talk to a journalist in such depth is related to another big Murdoch story that was published in the New York Times a few days before, when Jonathan Mahler and Jim Rutenberg revealed intimate details of a bizarre court case involving the Murdoch family trust.
In December 2023, Rupert formally filed to change the terms of the ‘irrevocable’ family trust which was drawn up in 1999 in the shadow of Rupert’s divorce from his second wife, Anna, and his imminent marriage to his third wife, Wendi Deng. Anna surrendered some of the money she could have commanded in order to secure control of the company for Rupert’s four existing children, safe from any future heirs.
The trust gave Rupert four votes and each of the children — Prudence, Elisabeth, Lachlan and James — one vote, and they would equally inherit Rupert’s share after he died. The trust arrangement could only be changed if it was to the benefit of all members. In the face of ongoing conflict between Lachlan and James, in late 2023 Rupert moved to change the trust to ensure that Lachlan would succeed him and not be challenged by the other three. Without any hint of irony they called it Project Harmony. Rupert and Lachlan argued that his control of the company in its conservative orientation was necessary for the company’s success, and so it was in the interest of the three “objecting children”, as they were called in court, to surrender the power the trust gave them. They, not surprisingly, did not agree.
The suit was filed in Nevada, and heard by a Probate Commissioner, Edmund Gorman. The secrecy surrounding the action held until the following July when Mahler and Rutenberg in the New York Times disclosed its existence and created an immediate uproar. As a result, when the family all attended the secret trial in September there was a crush of media waiting outside. In Gorman’s judgment, which immediately became public, he ruled decisively against Rupert and Lachlan.
It is hard to exaggerate just how stupid and counter-productive Rupert and Lachlan’s action was. Given that any change had to be beneficial to all members and that three of the four affected members declared they were against it, this was an action that always had almost zero chance of success. Mounting the action further sharpened the lines of conflict in the family, with the other three now far more solidly locked in against Lachlan. After the case, their bargaining position became much stronger.
Probably the biggest loser was Lachlan. The Commissioner not only dismissed the action by him and Rupert, but found they had acted in bad faith. While he found Rupert an honest witness, he called Lachlan’s testimony misleading and accused him of lacking candour.
Moreover, assuming he does succeed his father, everyone will know that he is just one vote by his three siblings away from having his authority overthrown.
Now, adding to Rupert and Lachlan’s embarrassment, Rutenberg and Mahler have again captured global media attention, by gaining access to more than 3000 pages of court documents, all the rulings and the full transcript of the trial, plus private messages between family members that were entered as evidence. ‘The tortured dynamics of their dynasty — the power plays, backstabbing and grievances that define the Murdoch family history – were all unearthed during the discovery process, and then they all had to testify against each other in open court.
In the communications that emerged, James learned how his father talked about him to the rest of the family — how calculating and manipulative Rupert could be; how many insidious stories over the years — the ones that portrayed Kathryn as a meddling “former model” and James as a liberal dilettante — had been planted by Rupert’s camp. According to Coppins, he found the revelation liberating.
While the conflict between Lachlan and James was prolonged and probably irreconcilable, Elisabeth’s and Prudence’s views seemed more fluid. But both were shocked, and both opposed Rupert’s action.
Prudence called her father to try to talk him out of going forward. She was characteristically blunt. She said that he couldn’t treat her and Liz like “his assistants” and warned him about what might happen if he didn’t reconsider: “You already lost one son. And you could well lose two daughters over this.”
Similarly, Elisabeth had always tried to be the peacemaker in the family. Now her father was not only taking her voting power away, he apparently thought she might be willing to hand it over without a fight. “I felt so violated and forsaken.” She pleaded with him to come up with a different solution, one that would take everyone’s wishes into account. “You are completely disenfranchising me and my siblings,” she told him. “You’ve blown a hole in the family.”
Rupert seemed indifferent to or uncomprehending of the impact on his daughters. Just a few weeks before the trial was set to begin, Rupert sent Prudence flowers for her birthday, according to her testimony at trial. She wrote to thank him, but added that she didn’t think he realised how much he had hurt her and Liz. “Nonsense,” her father wrote back. At trial Elisabeth was asked about her relationship with her father. She described it as previously “unbelievably close”, but now as “absent”.
James is quoted by Coppins as calling his father a misogynist. Rupert’s testimony at the trial would not have dispelled the charge. When he was asked about the sisters having to decide whom to support: “And the solution to that problem of having two grown women having to make a decision was for you to make the decision for them, correct?” “Yes,” Rupert answered. Likewise he said to Elisabeth that she was bending to James’s will. She shot back “Do you think I’m a fucking moron?”
Once it was clear the conflict could not be resolved in the family, a meeting of the trust was called. James and Kathryn said to Coppins that a less dysfunctional family might have tried to have a normal conversation about their differences. Instead, they had a Zoom meeting. Rupert, surrounded by lawyers, read robotically from a script. Lachlan busied himself at an off-screen laptop and didn’t even look at the camera.
Emotions quickly boiled over. Elisabeth, who was secretly taping the proceedings, accused her father and brother of “raping” the family company. “You think there’s going to be consensus with a gun to our head?” she said. “If you think that’s harmony, we must be in North Korea.”
And months later, they all faced each other again in court.
Even after the trial, the three “objecting children” reached out at a personal level to Rupert: ‘Thanksgiving and Christmas are upon us and the three of us wanted to reach out to you personally to say that we miss you and love you,” they wrote. “Over and above any other feelings all of us may have — of upset and shock — our unifying emotion is sorrow and grief.”
Maybe they could try to talk things out without lawyers and probate commissioners – and reach a compromise they all agreed on: “We are asking you with love to find a way to put an end to this destructive judicial path so that we can have a chance to heal as a collaborative and loving family.”
A couple of days later, Rupert wrote back. He’d read his children’s testimony from the trial twice over. “Only to conclude that I was right,” he told them. He instructed them to have their lawyers contact his if they wanted to talk further. “Much love, Dad.”
Beyond the family battles and the business arguments, Rupert tried to tie the outcome to a larger cause. He argued that it would be a “disaster” for the country if Fox News were to fall into the wrong hands. He also said that, “Fox and our papers are the only faintly conservative voices against the monolithic liberal media. I believe maintaining this is vital to the future of the English-speaking world.”
The idea that the future of the English-speaking world depends on Fox News is not the most heartening scenario. But Rupert’s complete misuse of the word conservative should not be allowed to pass. In its classical meaning conservatism meant respect for institutions and caution about risking change in case of unintended effects. Murdoch and Fox News are not respecters of institutions. During and after the COVID pandemic for example, they did not show respect for medical authorities. Fox News is of the populist right wing.
James told Coppins he now saw Fox News as a blight on his family’s name and a menace to American democracy. His first big falling out was when Fox gave sympathetic coverage to Trump as he failed to denounce a neo-Nazi rally.
Another point of contention is the way so many Murdoch outlets deny global warming. It seems here that Prudence and Elisabeth agree with James. After Lachlan appointed Tony Abbott to the Board, Prudence texted her sister: “He has now appointed the ghastly Tony Abbott to the Fox board.’ Elisabeth responded: “Oh my God, what a bad move.” Prudence concluded: “I can’t support Lachlan if he doesn’t change his stance on climate change.”
A crucial breaking point was the way that Fox responded to Trump’s false claims that he had been robbed in the 2020 election. After being spooked by some ratings falls, Rupert directed that Fox should cater to the audience’s prejudices and promote Trump’s falsehoods. It was an expensive choice as they had to settle a defamation suit with Dominion Voting Systems for more than three quarters of a billion dollars.
Nevertheless, ratings remained high. Again, endorsing baseless attacks on the central institutions of democracy is the inverse of conservative.
Indeed Rupert’s real legacy has been, for reasons of commercial expedience to abandon all professional standards, to be a voice for dishonest propaganda.
The lesson is clear – never trust anyone who cheats at Monopoly.
Rodney Tiffen’s books include Rupert Murdoch. A Reassessment and Disposable Leaders. Media and Leadership Coups from Menzies to Abbott.
Rodney Tiffen is Emeritus Professor of Politics at the University of Sydney. His latest book (with Anika Gauja, Brendon O’Connor, Ross Gittins and David Smith) is How America Compares, published in 2019 by Springer.